lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] selinux: add selinux_is_enforced() function
2017-04-12 13:55 GMT+02:00 Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>:
> As currently written this code isn't something we would want to merge
> upstream for two important reasons:
>
> * No abstraction layer at the LSM interface. The core kernel code
> should not call directly into any specific LSM, all interaction should
> go through the LSM hooks.

The idea behind this patch and the other one was to replicate what is
done with selinux_is_enabled(). As I understand it now,
selinux_is_enabled() should remain the only exception to the LSM
hooks.
So do you agree if I propose a new security_is_enforced() function at
the LSM abstraction layer, which will be hooked to a
selinux_is_enforced() function defined inside the SELinux LSM?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-12 15:32    [W:0.079 / U:19.276 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site